By Michael Toth
Thousands of judges across the nation have sat through climate-science training and received literature from trusted federal bodies and scientific institutes. Those judges had every right to expect that the information they received was neutral, objective, settled science. They were mistaken.
My latest research paper presents the first full taxonomy of a coordinated, multi-year campaign designed to shape how the American judiciary understands climate litigation. It documents how the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) built an extensive educational apparatus to train judges on climate issues—in the words of one session attendee— “from what would effectively be the plaintiff’s side.”
ELI routinely portrays itself as a neutral arbiter committed to “insightful and impartial analysis.” In 2018, it launched the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) to provide judges with “authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science.” Yet, as my report details, CJP shares multiple donors and advisors with Sher Edling LLP, the San Francisco-based law firm behind more than two dozen climate lawsuits against energy companies.
The training methodology CJP deployed is striking. The goal was not merely to educate judges about complex areas of law and science, but to encourage them to develop and execute their own climate “action plans.” Slide presentations and emails obtained between ELI staff and attendees show judges being coached on how to spread that influence to colleagues on the bench. Attendance forms show judges from California, Delaware, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and even Puerto Rico attended CJP trainings—all jurisdictions with active climate suits.
CJP’s reach extended to established judicial and scientific gatekeepers. A 2020 CJP curriculum draft identified the Federal Judicial Center’s (FJC) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Extreme Weather Attribution Report as publications judges could rely upon. Both would go on to bear the project’s fingerprints.
Released in 2025, the Fourth Edition of the Reference Manual included a climate change chapter for the first time. That section was later revealed to have lifted material heavily from the prior writings of a lawyer representing climate plaintiffs, Sher Edling’s Michael Burger. The chapters’ listed authors, moreover, were both CJP presenters and the manual shared some of the same funders as the foundations bankrolling the public-nuisance suits targeting the energy sector. Following the public outcry over these conflicts of interest, the FJC and NAS took the unprecedented step of removing the climate chapter entirely.
That controversy, however, did not stop NAS, which initially pushed back against criticism of the manual, from releasing the Extreme Weather Attribution Report. The committee behind the report was similarly one-sided in favor of climate plaintiffs, which may explain why the 253-page document lays out theories for attributing the effects of climate change to specific energy producers without seriously dealing with the inconvenient fact that greenhouse gas emissions are largely driven by global demand for energy.
When private interest groups slip past the adversarial process to tilt the scales on contested issues, the rule of law is compromised. The findings in my report demonstrate an urgent need for updated disclosure requirements surrounding judicial education programs. Trusted institutional gatekeepers like the Federal Judicial Center must institute rigorous vetting mechanisms to restore their credibility. Ultimately, federal and state officials should investigate how ELI and CJP gained such unchecked access over the bench and establish strict guardrails to ensure this cannot happen again.
Michael Toth is director of research at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
UT = University of Texas
Academics who live in model based realities rather than empirical ones are how things got so far away from the scientific method and fact based science. Attribution propaganda is absurd circular reasoning cherry picking.
The depth and breadth of the corruption is stunning. We need seperation of science and state.
The Most Important Machine in the World (
) clearly demonstrates that state support is not necessary for fundamental advances in science and technology.
Try this link to find the original posting: https://www.civitasinstitute.org/research/politicians-keep-sabotaging-energy-infrastructure—-then-wonder-why-prices-soar
It’s rational to be reasonably unreasonable!
Every case brought to court should start by asking if the judge attended CJP training and, if they did, move to have them removed from the case for being steeped in propaganda and unable to be unbiased.
If anything, I really hope the American judiciary is nowhere near as lunatic as their British counterparts clearly are.
New guidance issued to judges requires them to consider if they risk upsetting anyone when address them in court – including criminals. Advice from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary said that judges must treat everyone in the court “respectfully” and think about how their “words and behaviour can affect others”.
The confusing new guidelines left one judge overseeing a court in Wales asking jurors in they would be offended if he addressed them as “ladies and gentleman”. Justice Eyre was left worried he risked upsetting non-binary people if he did not first ask if anyone was offended by the phrase. – GBN
Can you believe that? Believe me, that’s nothing when set against the backdrop of two-tier [identity based] justice.
Strat,
Madness is all around us. Here is a short story. (I am male):
We live in an apartment required to employ a Manager to execute Body Corporate matters as directed by an OC, Owners’ Corporation Committee. Our Manager is mostly one woman. Said Manager was set several tasks at the last Annual General Meeting nearly a year ago. They remain to be done despite prompting. In one prompt to the Committee, I mentioned that it was illegal for the Manager to fail to execute these requirements and that there seemed to be a fear of raising a levy to pay for some work expeditiously.
The Manager and ladies on the Committee then wrote or endorsed “Statements suggesting that the Committee is acting out of fear, failing to understand its responsibilities, acting illegally, or otherwise failing to perform its duties are serious allegations. Repeated comments of this nature are not helpful and can be perceived as intimidating or bullying towards Committee members and the Owners Corporation Manager.”
The men stayed silent.
Overlooked: It IS “illegal”.
Geoff S
How are UK judges expected to exercise their authority in court if they have to ask permission from the accused to call them by their biological sex?
Defendants in these cases should consider this line of reasoning against a claim of harm.
“We have heard the plaintiff’s attribution of “climate” harm due to emissions of CO2 in the use of the defendant’s fuel products. This claim depends on the “warming” tendency (in Watts per square meter) from rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, computed using radiative transfer models. Fine. Our client accepts that there is indeed a static “warming” tendency. We request a meeting in chambers to propose a settlement with the plaintiff based on the proportional influence of incremental CO2 within the circulating atmosphere, in Watts per square meter, as noted here in Exhibit A.”
Exhibit A:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing
There. Fundamentally, it doesn’t need to be any more complicated than this. The basis for any claims of “harm” is vanishingly weak.
Thank you for your patient attention to this matter of unsound attribution.
P.S. More here with a full explanation and references about energy conversion within the general circulation.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Good stuff, as usual, but I would caution ‘our clients’ against conceding any amount of ‘forcing’ derived using the conjecture that radiative transfer models actually describe the mechanism by which the bulk of thermal energy emitted by the Earth’s surface is transported through the troposphere.
Thanks for your reply.
“…conceding any amount of ‘forcing’…”
Understood. The point is that dynamic energy conversion demonstrates that the improvement in IR absorption from incremental CO2 is not capable of operating as a “forcing” so as to exert a perceptible influence on the climate system.
How so?
“How so?”
Answers: Because the computed “warming” tendency does not persist uniquely as internal energy; and because the incremental static IR absorbing effect, say, of 2XCO2, in W/m^2, is vanishingly weak in any case in the proper dynamic context of the power intensities of energy conversion within the general circulation.
The warming effect of a doubling of atmospheric co2 concentration has been shown to be in the range of 2-4.5C, with a median estimate of 3C.
The JASON/Charney Group (1979): Convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Jule Charney and top modelers produced the first authoritative consensus. Equilibrium Range: They estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to be 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a CO2 doubling. Enduring Baseline: This 3-degree uncertainty spread has remained the benchmark across successive Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments for over 40 years.
“The warming effect […] has been
shown” hallucinatedFixed it for you.
“They estimated”
Yes, that’s a more accurate phrase than “shown”. Nothing has been “shown” about the relationship between temperature and CO2, but lots of things have been imagined.
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response
“If you disagree with the scientific arguments”
What scientific arguments? You told us that all they have is estimates. Those aren’t scientific arguments. They’re guesswork. You also lied about the word “shown”. You planning to apologize for that? The world’s scientific community awaits your response.
Science always produces estimates. Deniers do guesses.
No, Warren, the word “science” means “knowledge”. Estimates produced by computer models are not “knowledge”. They are, as I said, guesses.
Are you planning to apologize for lying about the word “shown”? The world’s scientific community awaits your response.
Estimates are the only thing science gives us. All measurements have error bars. Are you planning to apologize for being born stupid?
Still lying about using the word “shown”, I see. Good job.
“All measurements have error bars.”
I never said they didn’t. The hypothetical effect of CO2 on temperature isn’t a “measurement”, though, is it?
“Are you planning to apologize for being born stupid?”
I’m not the one who’s lying.
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response
‘The world’s scientific community awaits your response.’
Is this like the United Federation of Planets? Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we could just bypass the gate keepers at your biased journals and simply ask your so-called experts to opine on David’s post directly at WUWT? I, for one, would love to know when the application of radiative transfer theory to atmospheric gases emerged from the realm of phenomenological physics. And while you’re at it, maybe you can advise when an instrument actually capable of measuring the Poynting vector was invented.
https://youtu.be/hjKJyn_uoIE?t=1442&si=F_qS28ZPAThRRAKF
David made an assertion that’s contradicted by all published research, nor does he provide any evidence, so its failure is self evident. I think Poynting and Heaviside would agree that David is clueless,
Crtl-C, Crtl-V
Yep, his comment section hijacks are really boring.
Hello WB, nice to hear from you. Thank you for your interest in my comments.
“I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society…”
The record from the Royal Meteorological Society already includes the “discussion” section published with Guy Callendar’s 1938 article attributing reported station warming to a rising concentration of CO2. In essence, I am emphasizing the same things Simpson and Brunt explained to Callendar to encourage him to reconsider. I have produced nothing really new or original in concept. I simply use the present-day ERA5 reanalysis model to demonstrate those same points. Please consider reading and understanding all this from my open thread comment in March linked here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
Be well, even as we obviously disagree at present.
I think extensive research has established the Atmospheric Greenhouse effect as standard science, found in every university textbook on atmospheric physics:
The discovery of the greenhouse effect spans nearly two centuries, starting with Joseph Fourier‘s 1824 calculation that Earth’s atmosphere traps heat like an insulating blanket. Experimental proof followed from Eunice Foote in 1856 and John Tyndall in 1859, who showed how gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor absorb infrared radiation. [1, 2]
Key Historical Milestones
And, what happens if the judge uses AI to write the judgement. It is happening. The first level response of AI will support the plaintifs case and I doubt many judges will look deeper.
If this were the case, wouldn’t the judgement be challenged and potentially dismissed?
I suggest that this influencing of the judiciary is becoming dangerously close to the definition of a kangaroo court:
From Chatbot AI:
“A kangaroo court is a mock or illegitimate tribunal in which the normal principles of law, justice, and due process are ignored, distorted, or predetermined. The defining feature is that the outcome is essentially decided in advance, and the proceeding exists only to create the appearance of a fair hearing rather than the substance of one.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f9e9.svg Core elements of a kangaroo court
The “How science works” chapter also belongs on the list of alarmist influences:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/09/06/manual-for-judges-saying-how-science-works-is-very-wrong-on-climate-science/
A nice example of the climate debate by the way with over 300 comments so far. What is really funny is the alarmist claims there is no debate while being immersed in it.
This stinking mess is very disturbing. In my view no judge or any other officer of the court should ever lean on materials from one side of an issue. If they are caught doing that they should immediately lose their job. Secondly any so called educational outfit that only presents one view should be banned from all courtrooms. Information they presented should never be allowed. Every day judges tell jurors what they can consider and what they can’t. It appears to me that a lot of people have been abusing the system for a long time. That needs to end now.
I went to the Sher Edling website and saw the photos of two rich dudes. I wonder how many fancy cars they have, and how often they go to fancy restaurants on their climates dime.
This type of educational capture has existed in many Australian schools for some years now.
A family rich from selling jeans set up Cool.org to sell conveniently packaged, canned curricula to lazy and inept teachers, so teachers do not have to prepare their own lessons in traditional manner. Sadly, the Cool.org material is full of woke environmental pap.
In Australia we have education departments in State and Federal governments. Why have they let this happen? Were they cowardly like MIA, Missing In Action, in a warfare analogy?
Many teachers, maybe a majority, now buy this educational cop-out to teach our children just on view of life.
Geoff S
….
Sources:
A Jet Jockey’s Little Green Schoolkids – Climate Scepticism
Turning Kids into Crackpot Crusaders – Quadrant